Page:The Economic Journal Volume 1.djvu/619

 REVIEWS 597 hopes for a Clear statement of the purely economic issues from the protectionist stand-point. Unfortunately his expectations will not be fully realized, for the new basis of protection is found in a distinction between' static' and ' dynamic' societies the argument being that the latter require an active policy, having protection as one ingredient, with the further con- tention that protection tends ' to keep society dynamic and progressive.' But here a difficulty at once arises. Is protection needed by all ' dynamic' societies ? If so, as most civilized nations are surely ' dynamic,' (Professor Patten only claims that ' the American people are in a more dynamic state than that of other competing nations '), is not protection advisable for them ? If it be otherwise, what further conditions are needed in order to justify the use of this instrument ? Why, e.g. would not England gain by it ? Yet it seems to be admitted that for England free trade has been a success. Again, much weight is laid on the non-adjustment of the American people to their environ- ment, and on the need of efforts to remedy this state of things. A little reflection shows that no modern society is in perfect harmony with its economic surroundings. The new means of transport to take but a single factor have altered the whole economic system of Europe and are now affecting India. Assent to the proposition that a dynamic and imperfectly-adjusted society requires protection would lead to the result that nearly all Europe and parts of Asia should get the advantages of this ' active policy.' There is, however, no economic reason given that could at all support such a view. The author dwells with emphasis on the ' fallacies' of free-traders, and on the ' low ideal' that they form of society, but the free-trader may with at least equal force ask for some proof of the main position taken up by his critic, and fully accepting the general conception of a ' dynamic ' society retort that it is precisely under such conditions that freedom of commerce is most desirable. When a nation is ' bound down by the necessities of the military rule' and by habit and custom, resxiction may probably preserve the old institutions and keep the community ' static,' but full liberty of movement is essential in an active and changing society. No appeal to purely economic principles can decide between these opposed beliefs. Their difference is really the otcome of the essentially different view that the holders of each take of the causes of social progress. Professor Patten himself suggests as much. ' Believers in protection need first of all a consistent theory of the causes of national progress,' and so far as we can see that theory is that progress depends on the action of the State. The social organism does not develop in an harmonious way under the stimulus of individual interests: it must be guided by conscious care and effort in the way wherein it should go. Thus Professor Patten supplies the examples it depends on state policy whether the American people shall have the right kind of clothing; whether their soil shall be properly cultivated;whether their labour shall be suitably distributed. Not content with the